Focus on violence, not control

That President Barrack Obama has offered a broad plan to address gun violence is welcome news, coming midst the cacophony of partisan debate that awaited his announcement on Wednesday.

In many ways the plan holds promise: better background checks, improved access to the records of those who may be mentally ill, and more police in schools.

For the most part, however, the president’s plan tries to put the horse back in the barn after it has escaped. Put another way, he is trying to put a band aid on a festering sore.

The key to addressing gun violence lies not in further restricting the rights of legal gun owners. The answer rests in confronting a nationwide proclivity for gun violence.

It would appear the president understands the need for such a dialogue. But we have to wonder if he understands its overriding significance given how deeply buried the notion is in his proposal.

The White House summary of the president’s plan offers eight talking points, which have been blindly reported in summary since Wednesday. This may be why early criticism of his plan has failed to concede there may be hope buried deep within.

We draw readers’ attention to No. 6 of the eight summary points. It appears under the heading, “End the freeze on gun violence research,” and lies in the last sentence of a diatribe leveled at gun rights advocates. We have highlighted the relevant words below:

“There are approximately 30,000 firearm-related homicides and suicides a year, a number large enough to make clear this is a public health crisis. But for years, the Centers for Disease Control and other scientific agencies have been barred by Congress from using funds to “advocate or promote gun control,” and some members of Congress have claimed this prohibition also bans the CDC from conducting any research on the causes of gun violence. However, research on gun violence is not advocacy. The President is directing the CDC and other research agencies to conduct research into the causes and prevention of gun violence, and the CDC is announcing that they will begin this research.

The president and the cause of reducing gun violence would be better served with a positive, forward-reaching dialogue that doesn’t lay blame. Instead, we fear that the critical need to identify this nation’s apparent lust for gun violence will be lost.

We strongly urge those invested in the debate to not lose sight of the end game — reducing violence.

The United States body politic has shown the ability to overcome deathly challenges in the past and we believe it can do so again with the proper leadership and national consensus. Deaths due to drunken driving are down as the result of a broad awakening to its dangers. A similar effort has gotten under way to cut the death and injury rate resulting from texting while driving. Cancer death rates have plummeted due to a new-found bounty of knowledge, not a gnashing of teeth — as appears to be much the case with gun violence.

When all is said and done, the solution sought by the president, along with both sides of the gun debate, lies in identifying the disease, not repeatedly changing the dressing. We believe the president’s plan includes a seed of hope this can happen. And to that end we urge New Hampshire’s congressional delegation to not dwell on controls as much as supporting the CDC and others in identifying the root cause(s) of gun violence. This would be an effort few, in good conscience, could oppose.